VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jane Steele <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Jane Steele <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 3 Jul 2007 20:50:04 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (128 lines)
Anita: You are correct as always.  And Lyle, Africa is not nor has it as a whole ever been basically a slave country.  My dad's 10th Grade English teacher Mrs. Abna Lancaster's father was from Western Africa and he did not grow up in slavery.  In fact he came to America,was educated at Livingstone College in Salisbury,NC and married an African-American woman.  They raised Mrs. Lancaster and her sister who both became educators and also became national role models. their dad founded a college in Western Africa.  Please check your facts.  Jane.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Anita Wills <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Jul 2, 2007 3:56 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Nat Turner and unchanging history
>
>I would account for it by the psychological conditioning of slavery from 
>generation to generation. Teaching young children that God ordained they be 
>slaves. Whippings and torture of some slaves in front of other slaves.  I 
>guess you missed roots, and the condtioning (or seasoning), he was subjected 
>to.  I would liken it to the Stockholm syndrome, where these slaves began 
>believing what their captures told them.
>
>Anita
>
>
>>From: "Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history         
>>      <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Nat Turner and unchanging history
>>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 14:16:58 -0400
>>
>>On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:23 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>
>>>Anne;
>>>
>>>I continue to hypothesize that Black Africans were conditioned for  
>>>slavery
>>>by their culture in Africa inasmuch as slavery was an accepted  
>>>possibility for
>>>all Black Africans prior to the first one ever coming to the American
>>>colonies.
>>I don't think all Africans can be put into that particular status  
>>accurately.
>>
>>>   A good read on this point is Paul E. Lovejoy's Transformations  in
>>>Slavery (Cambridge U Press 2000).  Otherwise, how can you account  for so  
>>>many
>>>strong and able men and women submitting passively for the most  part to  
>>>such a
>>>terrible conditions and for so many generations?
>>One aspect of it was that the captured people generally were not  warriors 
>>as those would have preferentially been killed off but  rather the rest of 
>>the group who were by their nature not going to be  in overt rebellion.
>>
>>Another aspect was where could they go once they were here having  survived 
>>the Middle Passage? Some did flee to Native American lands  where they 
>>integrated into those societies but they had to be a tiny  majority. Plus 
>>by being black they were going to be noticed in a  crowd so it's not like 
>>there was anyplace to really get away or get  back to something that 
>>probably didn't exist because your whole  village was gone. Getting 
>>elsewhere meant basically becoming  invisible until you got there as you 
>>were never safe from discovery  until then and sometimes not even then.
>>>
>>>Arguably, today's US welfare system is nothing more than a  continuation 
>>>of
>>>the manifestations of that conditioning.
>>Let's hope the pool's deep enough for my dive here: one might agree  that 
>>welfare was a good intentioned thing that ended up doing not a  lot that 
>>was useful until the "welfare to work" aspect was put into  place (granted 
>>it helped people in need too; and the economics of it  needs to be lived to 
>>fully appreciate the Catch 22's in place). But  here's the rub: let's say 
>>you were conditioned by years and  generations to be subservient, never 
>>assert yourself because no  matter what it either wouldn't work, it would 
>>be grabbed from you if  you did, etc. and this is after the horrors of 
>>slavery, AND, because  as a subtle form of rebellion, you did as little as 
>>possible. So that  attitude would play well because there was no one else 
>>to do the jobs  you did. So you continue with that until when? Well, what I 
>>have  observed is another paradigm shift in attitudes. The influx of  
>>Hispanic peoples who were perceived to have worked 10 times harder  than 
>>anyone else around in hotter conditions, for less wages, far  more 
>>willingly, etc. has caused a shift in attitude wherein the  former zombie 
>>like movement has been replaced by hustle. So now you  see a market niche 
>>being occupied by folks who have hustle, speak the  same language and know 
>>the area. That's equal opportunity that will  hopefully end that old 
>>dreadful pas de deux dance of death we were  formerly locked into 
>>disappearing. The more I look, the more it  starts to look really 
>>colorblind now.
>>
>>I will don my Nomex suit for flamethrowers who will misinterpret to  their 
>>heart's malcontent.
>>>
>>>I can't see myself or any of my ancestors living in that manner.    
>>>Perhaps
>>>that's the reason they bravely sought freedom in the new world and  made  
>>>America
>>>the greatest, and most humanitarian, country in the history of   mankind.
>>By the fact that your ancestors came here was an indication that they  were 
>>not satisfied with life in the old country. While I have no idea  where 
>>your ancestors originated, one presumes Europe. In many parts  of Europe, 
>>peasants were part of the land and were in fact enduring a  form of slavery 
>>for untold generations. Non-first sons came to make  their own way, etc. 
>>True, there were some who were sent here to avoid  prison or execution. And 
>>a lot of these were persons of deep but  different religious beliefs 
>>sentenced to exile rather than common or  garden criminals.
>>
>>That goes to the range and variation in human behavior. Some will  tolerate 
>>almost anything for 3 squares and a bed. Others will want  more and if 
>>offered the relatively painless opportunity to achieve  it, will take it; 
>>others sought something better than they had, no  matter what; and others 
>>will not be satisfied until they have  achieved their ideals. Americans by 
>>virtue of coming here in the  first place tended to be of the third and 
>>fourth categories.
>>
>>It is important to understand that our ancestors had someplace to go  where 
>>they weren't immediately going to be identifiable as anything  other than a 
>>fellow striver. Certainly, they came from all classes,  social and economic 
>>status conditions, but the vast majority came  here to better themselves.
>>
>>Lyle Browning, RPA
>>>
>>>J South
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>************************************** See what's free at http:// 
>>>www.aol.com.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN 
>http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm


Lillian Jane Steele

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US